Sir Arthur Lewis Leaves Us in No Doubt About His Focus in the Writing of This Text
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Role of Religion in Economic Growth Submitted by Celia McKoy SALISES, UWI Mona Campus For the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies 6th Annual Conference March 17-18, 2005 Kingston, Jamaica 2 Introduction This paper consists of two sections. In the first I reflect on some aspects of Sir Arthur Lewis’ view of the role of religion in the economic growth of a nation. In “The Theory of Economic Growth”, Lewis examines the role of religion in shaping the values that determine people’s attitudes to work and the will to economise. He focuses on the ways in which various religions influence people’s beliefs. However, the book does not present an analysis of any specific efforts made by religious groups to contribute to economic growth. Since Christianity is the major religion in Jamaica, I discuss the influence of the church in shaping values that contribute to or detract from economic growth in this country, particularly over the five decades since this book was written. There is also discussion of the church’s own beliefs about its responsibility and how these beliefs have or have not been put into practice. The second section of this paper reflects on some of the benefits and costs of economic growth as presented by Lewis. This paper examines these costs and benefits in light of current theories of development, in particular those views of economic development favoured by Christian economists such as Herman Daly and theologians like John Cobb Jr., William Watty and Burchel Taylor. There is no single economic system that may be rightly defined as a Christian system. The Bible does not give us a blue print to easily solve all today’s economic problems, however, “…we nevertheless find in the biblical traditions the shape of God’s economy to which, for Christians, our economic systems should correspond as much as possible under the conditions of history.” (Meeks 3) 3 Lewis on Religion and Economic Growth Sir Arthur Lewis leaves us in no doubt about his focus in the writing of this text. It is as the title states, a book about economic growth and not the broader concept of development (in its many definitions) on which we tend to focus our attention these days. In the introduction he clearly establishes the following: that his focus is on growth in economic output and not the distribution of that output, and that the definition of ‘economic’ does not extend to concepts such as welfare or happiness (Lewis 9). He acknowledges that growth in output does not necessarily benefit everyone, as there may be increased inequity in the distribution of that increased income. He also acknowledges that growth does not necessarily improve welfare or buy happiness. Nevertheless this paper will focus on issues to do with development rather than just growth. The focus here is the role of religion and since religion is rarely ever concerned with mere growth it would not be very meaningful to discuss the subject purely from that angle. The factors that contribute to economic growth are identified by Lewis as the will to economise, the acquisition and application of knowledge, and increasing the amount of per capita capital and other resources. (Lewis 11) In his methodology, Lewis examines the nature of the environments that foster or hinder growth. In this analysis he looks at what institutions facilitate or impede growth, what are the beliefs that lead to the creation of these institutions and what causes one set of people to have one belief system or another. Lewis treats with the topic by investigating how economic relations, institutions and beliefs influence each of the three factors affecting growth. Sir Arthur summarises the relations between economic growth and religion by 4 first asking two questions: Are some religious beliefs incompatible with economic growth and secondly, does religion have an independent effect in shaping economic behaviour or is it merely a reflection of the prevailing economic conditions? (Lewis 101, 106) In answering the first question, the writer points out, among other things, that some religious beliefs encourage the contemplation of ways to increase productivity and “…teach that salvation can be reached through the discipline of hard and conscientious work, and do elevate the pursuit of efficiency into a moral virtue.” (Lewis 102) Such religious beliefs will encourage economic growth while others will tend to hinder it. For example, most religions discourage the desire for material things and instead encourage the contemplation of things spiritual. However, William Watty in a lecture entitled “Theology and Development” points out that, “In traditional theology the spiritual is set in antithesis to the material, and this has contributed to the distortion of priorities of the Church so far as human development is concerned. One can find in Christian literature abundant evidence of the denigration of material concerns in the interests of spiritual welfare or spiritual compensations – a denigration which is sometimes hypocritical and often naïve.” (Watty 36) Watty goes on to say that what is found in the Bible is instead an antithesis of both the spiritual and material over against the carnal. He posits that a correction of this error has serious implications for Christian involvement in development. Watty continues in his discussion of traditional theology by outlining what he refers to as the false antithesis created between heaven and earth. He contends that the real antithesis is between both heaven and earth on the one hand and hell on the other “…for hell is 5 the state of God-abandonment, whereas earth is the place where the Lord of heaven visited and redeemed His people.” (Watty 37) If people are taught that consideration of the material is un-spiritual, that they need not be concerned about the conditions in which they and others live here on earth while they wait for heaven’s rewards, they will not be likely to engage in contemplating the ways to achieve economic growth as outlined by Lewis. However, this does not mean that the spiritual has no place in discussions of economic growth. In the face of circumstances that would otherwise result in despair, hopelessness and fatalism, it is the hope offered by belief in God in Christ that enables many persons to continue planning and working in efforts to bring increased income and its various benefits to themselves and the wider community. It is the belief in a just and righteous God that makes it possible for them to continue in the face of injustice and unrighteousness. It is the ‘pie in the sky’ that keeps the faithful working today because they know that better will really come, as promised by the Bible and not by the politician. These beliefs can and do result in behaviour that has a positive impact on economic growth and, more importantly, development. Lewis second question is, “Does religion have an independent effect in shaping economic behaviour or does religion merely reflect economic conditions?” (Lewis 106) According to Lewis, some argue that religion accommodates economic change, and as such religion neither hinders nor promotes economic change. Lewis disagrees and says that even if religion were always to give way to economic interests it could still slow down the rate of change in the society. Furthermore he asserts, “It is possible for a nation to stifle its economic growth by adopting passionately and intolerantly religious doctrines of a kind which are incompatible with growth. Or it is possible for conversion 6 to a new faith to be the spark which sets off economic growth.” (Lewis 107) He gives the example of the centuries-old Hindu consideration of the cow a sacred and therefore not used in economic activity. A form of Christianity was brought to this region with the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492. The Europeans were here for the purpose of enriching themselves and the ‘gospel’ they brought was one of the tools to be used in that mission. They brutally exterminated the native populations of the islands and just as brutally dragged another set of people across the Atlantic and enslaved them here, still for the express purpose of enriching themselves. Their religion had nothing to do with the message of Jesus Christ. I do not think it was Christianity at all. It was every thing that Jesus was against and was really an elaborate exercise in taking the name of the Lord in vain. Religion as a tool of the dominant economic powers was used to teach the dominated how to be servile slaves and eventually peaceful peasants. According to Ashley Smith, “Traditional Christianity is presented with a real challenge to provide an honest interpretation of the task of development in today’s world. It is for this reason that the typical Marxist model of development in terms of the restructuring of society and traditional human relationship advocates either the destruction of institutionalised Christianity or the removal of Christian faith from the scene of any serious debate on the issue of human development. Of course, experience has shown that in societies which have for centuries used the Judeo-Christian scriptures as the source of their values, the idea of either ignoring or abolishing the Christian tradition is a meaningless one, and any serious attempt to put it into practice can be counter-productive and obstructive to the process of development.” (Smith 35) 7 However, Rev. Garnet Roper, in his comments on Dr. Trevor Munroe’s paper “Revolutionary Change and Religious Freedom”, indicates that religion is presented “…in almost monolithic terms and depicted almost only in terms of its aberrations.” (Roper 74) In presenting the role of religion, particularly Christianity, in the development of people in the region we often see such a one-dimensional portrayal.